To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Vol. I.
SACRAMENTO: SUNDAY, APRIL 14, 1889.
No. 8.
Themis: published weekly, by A. J. Johnston & Co. Publication
Office, 410 J Street. Subscription—One year, by mail, $3 00; six months,
by mail, $1 50; per month, by carrier, 25 cents. (Entered at the Post
Office at Sacramento as second-class matter.)
It is always cowardly and despicable to whine, even
at the most serious reverses. There are many of the
newspapers of this country making personal assaults
upon the Senators who refused to vote to confirm
Murat Halstead as Minister to Germany. The right
of a journalist to review and criticize men in public
life is a right, but it must be a just criticism, without
any personal animosity. Too often do we find the
powerful and influential newspaper wielding that power
from personal motives or disappointed ambition, and
when even a worthy man, in all respects, aspires to a
position of honor and trust, if he does not happen to
accord with such newspaper upon some matter of public policy, or there is some personal bitterness between
them, then comes an attack which speaks to thousands,
while his voice only reaches the few. Such a contest
results in the ruin and oblivion of the person who
comes under the ban of such a newspaper. We have
a case in point with Murat Halstead. Here is a man,
who, with his ability and genius, has used the power
of his paper to assault and blacken men at his mere
whim.
It is popular in some localities to belittle and abuse
public men upon the merest suspicion. In fact, the
bare election or appointment of our fellow-citizen to
a public trust is a signal for imputations of dishonesty and a general scheme of public theft. So general
has this belief been inculcated among the masses that
it has become almost proverbial that any man who
accepts a public office is per force a thief. The newspapers alone are responsible for this state of affairs.
The abuse of that great power in then vested has educated the unthinking public to this conclusion.
Now, Murat Halstead has for many years wielded
his pen against men, sometimes justly; often at the mere
caprice of his mind and to gain public recognition, no
matter where his sharp lances penetrated, or how unjust might be his accusations, or how deeply and
fatally he might wound a worthy citizen who was powerless to reply. His whole motive seems to have been
to gain a notoriety that would result in the reading and
advancement of his paper, no matter how many human
wrecks might strew his pathway. We believe in
the liberty of the public press, but not in the liberty
to attack ad libitum any person who assumes the
equal right to differ with us. Mr. Halstead has for
years made the most violent assaults upon personal
and private character, and in such a manner as to often
result in the absolute ruin of innocent men. While he
has hurled his lance against some who deserved his
assault, the injury to the memory of good men has
robbed his just assaults of their true merit. Generally
some of his attacks have been directed against our
Senator, Governor Stanford, who holds a place in the
hearts of all Californians that all the newspapers in the
world cannot affect. It was stated in the executive
session of the Senate, that in the most critical time of
our existence, during the unholy rebellion, and at a
time when President Lincoln was doing all in the
power of mortal man to bring that war to a close, this
same Murat Halstead denounced Abraham Lincoln in
the most indecent terms, and announced that it would
be a good thing for the country if he was removed by
any means; but that his removal would not be of benefit because a "bigger ass," Hannibal Hamlin, would
succeed him. Yet here is a man, and his friends, who
whine because some of the United States Senators had
memories of the past and manhood enough to resent
the insults and abuses this same Murat Halstead had
heaped upon them and the defenders of the nation in
the past. The rejection of Murat Halstead is no insult to the President, but simply a just and proper act,
wherein the assaulter of private character is given some
of his own medicine.
Some of the most learned scientists are not votaries
of the doctrine of total abstinence. Temperance is the
true precept, but the fanatical idea of absolute denial
of the use of stimulants is an error. Dr. W. S. Searle,
in an article on "Idiosyncrasies of Alcohol," found in
the North American Review for April, gives a learned
disquisition upon the use of alcohol, from a scientific
standpoint, which does not accord with the general
popular belief that the use of such stimulants are productive of such fatal results to humanity. The remedy
for whatever is evil in the excessive use of alcohol is
not in the fanaticism of total abstinence, but in the temperate use of stimulants. Alcohol does not affect all
persons alike. Neither does tea, coffee, tobacco,
arsenic, nor other substances. When used moderately,
any of these, including alcohol, it is extremely doubtful
whether they are capable of producing any disease in
the great majority of individuals. It is true that wine,
beer and distilled spirits do produce some functional and
organic diseases in many instances; yet there are
thousands of instances where old fellows have steadily
drank distilled liquors freely for fifty, sixty, seventy
years, and finally died like others, of old age. Alcohol is
least injurious to men of lymphatic temperament. Such
men often need the stimulating effect of ardent spirits;
to such they are a physical blessing, preventing disease. Men of intellect and charming moral qualities
are more likely to become slaves to the inordinate use
of intoxicants. In a great majority of cases the effect
of alcohol in excess produces nausea, dullness and
mental symptoms that are so disagreeable as to prevent
such from ever becoming drunkards. One of the
idiosyncrasies of alcohol, says the author, is that it
anaesthetizes the mind as well as the body. And as,
one by one, environing restraints lose their influence,
the true mental and moral characteristics of the man
appear. The lecherous becomes unchaste; the generous, prodigal; the brave, reckless; the cunning,
treacherous; the sentimental, maudlin. But when intoxication becomes fully developed, there is little except
the animal left; not enough, often, to make a decent
dog. When the drunkard is also a dipsomaniac—that
is, when his brain is really diseased—then intoxication
renders him a madman; indeed, furious, destructive,
murderous.
Dr. Searle contends that alcohol is not bad for
all purposes, and is a necessity in many cases. Children inheriting phthisis are assisted by alcohol and
enabled to pass the critical period when the disease is
wont to develop, and thus avoid it altogether. Men
in mercantile life, who pursue their business with unremitting attention, might escape early collapse if they
would renounce their total abstinence principles and
partake of wine with their meals. They would eat
less, digest better, carry fewer worries to their beds,
and be better able to endure a life which moves at a
faster rate and higher pressure. Many would be saved
from premature graves, or the worse fate of insanity.
Intelligent man should either settle this matter for
himself or act upon the advice of some broad minded
and experienced physician. The reasons given by the
learned doctor presupposes the use of a pure article of
distilled spirits; not those villainous compounds that
are now given out to the unfortunate individual who
thinks he needs stimulants. The vast amount of
drunkenness that we have in our large cities, and indeed in all places, is attributable more to the drugged
and poisonous compounds that are sold under the
names of whisky, brandy, rum and gin. When th ese
old fellows of the earlier period used to have their pure
liquors, and drank as much as they wanted, without
any restriction, there was not much complaint of intoxication or its results—crime. Distilled liquors, like
all other stimulants, when used in moderation are not
harmful. It is only the abuse that creates the direful
results to humanity.
Some one, certainly not of the Record- Union staff,
and who evidently wishes to be considered pedantic,
has attempted a criticism upon our school reader review of last Sunday. A criticism, to be such, must
deal with the subject matter under consideration, and
not the manner in which the review is expressed. The
self-constituted teacher of grammatical construction
ignores the subject of discussion and picks out some
alleged faulty sentences. There is not a brilliant writer
of the past century that adheres to the dogmatic ideas
of strict grammatical construction. Charles Dickens
was noted for his disregard of these rules. Shakespeare defied the strict rules of grammatical construction. The soliloquy of "Hamlet," which has always
been extolled in terms of admiration, might, from the
same character of review utilized by our contemporary,
be said to be a mass of absurdities and mixed metaphors. The same rules that are invoked against us would
apply to that famous soliloquy. Metaphor and flourishes of rhetoric have a very wide range with all writers,
and the application of rules does not apply. The expression of ideas in that form which catches the public
eye and ear is the one that addresses itself to the true
literary world. There is scarcely an article written,
but, if taken up and placed under the crucial tests laid
down in our modern grammars, would come under the
pedantic ban. Why, this effusion of our contemporary
is a fitting illustration of this statement, both from
literary and grammatical standpoints. Taking a sentence from this fearfully and wonderfully constructed
criticism, we defy any person, literary or otherwise, to
comprehend what is meant. Here it is:
But if we plead guilty to hypercriticism of error that may
be chargeable in justice to the proof-reader, the scapegoat of
many a literary sinner, it cannot be charged that it is captious to suggest, iu response to the editorial inquiry in the
next sentence, "What will we say?" that no one could have
answered the conundrum, except the literary Cheap-John
who propounded it, since he (possibly) knew. Had the question been "What shall we say," the world with propriety
might have replied that "silence is golden." It is not proposed to "cite attention" to all the china-smashing by our
contemporary's apprentice, but it is pardonable to call attention to the grammatical fact that "queries" do not, except
perhaps in the Themis office, "follows."
Our neighbors should look well to themselves ere
they find fault with others. "A man must serve a time
to every trade save censure; critics are ready made.''
The object of our review of the state series of school
books was not to find fault with their literary merit,
but to disclose the impractical and absurd questions
that are propounded to children of tender age. Thus
it will appear that our contemporary's criticism was
indeed hypercritical in the extreme. Certain it is that
our review was the truth, and written in such a manner as to reach the intelligence of our community.

Vol. I.
SACRAMENTO: SUNDAY, APRIL 14, 1889.
No. 8.
Themis: published weekly, by A. J. Johnston & Co. Publication
Office, 410 J Street. Subscription—One year, by mail, $3 00; six months,
by mail, $1 50; per month, by carrier, 25 cents. (Entered at the Post
Office at Sacramento as second-class matter.)
It is always cowardly and despicable to whine, even
at the most serious reverses. There are many of the
newspapers of this country making personal assaults
upon the Senators who refused to vote to confirm
Murat Halstead as Minister to Germany. The right
of a journalist to review and criticize men in public
life is a right, but it must be a just criticism, without
any personal animosity. Too often do we find the
powerful and influential newspaper wielding that power
from personal motives or disappointed ambition, and
when even a worthy man, in all respects, aspires to a
position of honor and trust, if he does not happen to
accord with such newspaper upon some matter of public policy, or there is some personal bitterness between
them, then comes an attack which speaks to thousands,
while his voice only reaches the few. Such a contest
results in the ruin and oblivion of the person who
comes under the ban of such a newspaper. We have
a case in point with Murat Halstead. Here is a man,
who, with his ability and genius, has used the power
of his paper to assault and blacken men at his mere
whim.
It is popular in some localities to belittle and abuse
public men upon the merest suspicion. In fact, the
bare election or appointment of our fellow-citizen to
a public trust is a signal for imputations of dishonesty and a general scheme of public theft. So general
has this belief been inculcated among the masses that
it has become almost proverbial that any man who
accepts a public office is per force a thief. The newspapers alone are responsible for this state of affairs.
The abuse of that great power in then vested has educated the unthinking public to this conclusion.
Now, Murat Halstead has for many years wielded
his pen against men, sometimes justly; often at the mere
caprice of his mind and to gain public recognition, no
matter where his sharp lances penetrated, or how unjust might be his accusations, or how deeply and
fatally he might wound a worthy citizen who was powerless to reply. His whole motive seems to have been
to gain a notoriety that would result in the reading and
advancement of his paper, no matter how many human
wrecks might strew his pathway. We believe in
the liberty of the public press, but not in the liberty
to attack ad libitum any person who assumes the
equal right to differ with us. Mr. Halstead has for
years made the most violent assaults upon personal
and private character, and in such a manner as to often
result in the absolute ruin of innocent men. While he
has hurled his lance against some who deserved his
assault, the injury to the memory of good men has
robbed his just assaults of their true merit. Generally
some of his attacks have been directed against our
Senator, Governor Stanford, who holds a place in the
hearts of all Californians that all the newspapers in the
world cannot affect. It was stated in the executive
session of the Senate, that in the most critical time of
our existence, during the unholy rebellion, and at a
time when President Lincoln was doing all in the
power of mortal man to bring that war to a close, this
same Murat Halstead denounced Abraham Lincoln in
the most indecent terms, and announced that it would
be a good thing for the country if he was removed by
any means; but that his removal would not be of benefit because a "bigger ass," Hannibal Hamlin, would
succeed him. Yet here is a man, and his friends, who
whine because some of the United States Senators had
memories of the past and manhood enough to resent
the insults and abuses this same Murat Halstead had
heaped upon them and the defenders of the nation in
the past. The rejection of Murat Halstead is no insult to the President, but simply a just and proper act,
wherein the assaulter of private character is given some
of his own medicine.
Some of the most learned scientists are not votaries
of the doctrine of total abstinence. Temperance is the
true precept, but the fanatical idea of absolute denial
of the use of stimulants is an error. Dr. W. S. Searle,
in an article on "Idiosyncrasies of Alcohol," found in
the North American Review for April, gives a learned
disquisition upon the use of alcohol, from a scientific
standpoint, which does not accord with the general
popular belief that the use of such stimulants are productive of such fatal results to humanity. The remedy
for whatever is evil in the excessive use of alcohol is
not in the fanaticism of total abstinence, but in the temperate use of stimulants. Alcohol does not affect all
persons alike. Neither does tea, coffee, tobacco,
arsenic, nor other substances. When used moderately,
any of these, including alcohol, it is extremely doubtful
whether they are capable of producing any disease in
the great majority of individuals. It is true that wine,
beer and distilled spirits do produce some functional and
organic diseases in many instances; yet there are
thousands of instances where old fellows have steadily
drank distilled liquors freely for fifty, sixty, seventy
years, and finally died like others, of old age. Alcohol is
least injurious to men of lymphatic temperament. Such
men often need the stimulating effect of ardent spirits;
to such they are a physical blessing, preventing disease. Men of intellect and charming moral qualities
are more likely to become slaves to the inordinate use
of intoxicants. In a great majority of cases the effect
of alcohol in excess produces nausea, dullness and
mental symptoms that are so disagreeable as to prevent
such from ever becoming drunkards. One of the
idiosyncrasies of alcohol, says the author, is that it
anaesthetizes the mind as well as the body. And as,
one by one, environing restraints lose their influence,
the true mental and moral characteristics of the man
appear. The lecherous becomes unchaste; the generous, prodigal; the brave, reckless; the cunning,
treacherous; the sentimental, maudlin. But when intoxication becomes fully developed, there is little except
the animal left; not enough, often, to make a decent
dog. When the drunkard is also a dipsomaniac—that
is, when his brain is really diseased—then intoxication
renders him a madman; indeed, furious, destructive,
murderous.
Dr. Searle contends that alcohol is not bad for
all purposes, and is a necessity in many cases. Children inheriting phthisis are assisted by alcohol and
enabled to pass the critical period when the disease is
wont to develop, and thus avoid it altogether. Men
in mercantile life, who pursue their business with unremitting attention, might escape early collapse if they
would renounce their total abstinence principles and
partake of wine with their meals. They would eat
less, digest better, carry fewer worries to their beds,
and be better able to endure a life which moves at a
faster rate and higher pressure. Many would be saved
from premature graves, or the worse fate of insanity.
Intelligent man should either settle this matter for
himself or act upon the advice of some broad minded
and experienced physician. The reasons given by the
learned doctor presupposes the use of a pure article of
distilled spirits; not those villainous compounds that
are now given out to the unfortunate individual who
thinks he needs stimulants. The vast amount of
drunkenness that we have in our large cities, and indeed in all places, is attributable more to the drugged
and poisonous compounds that are sold under the
names of whisky, brandy, rum and gin. When th ese
old fellows of the earlier period used to have their pure
liquors, and drank as much as they wanted, without
any restriction, there was not much complaint of intoxication or its results—crime. Distilled liquors, like
all other stimulants, when used in moderation are not
harmful. It is only the abuse that creates the direful
results to humanity.
Some one, certainly not of the Record- Union staff,
and who evidently wishes to be considered pedantic,
has attempted a criticism upon our school reader review of last Sunday. A criticism, to be such, must
deal with the subject matter under consideration, and
not the manner in which the review is expressed. The
self-constituted teacher of grammatical construction
ignores the subject of discussion and picks out some
alleged faulty sentences. There is not a brilliant writer
of the past century that adheres to the dogmatic ideas
of strict grammatical construction. Charles Dickens
was noted for his disregard of these rules. Shakespeare defied the strict rules of grammatical construction. The soliloquy of "Hamlet," which has always
been extolled in terms of admiration, might, from the
same character of review utilized by our contemporary,
be said to be a mass of absurdities and mixed metaphors. The same rules that are invoked against us would
apply to that famous soliloquy. Metaphor and flourishes of rhetoric have a very wide range with all writers,
and the application of rules does not apply. The expression of ideas in that form which catches the public
eye and ear is the one that addresses itself to the true
literary world. There is scarcely an article written,
but, if taken up and placed under the crucial tests laid
down in our modern grammars, would come under the
pedantic ban. Why, this effusion of our contemporary
is a fitting illustration of this statement, both from
literary and grammatical standpoints. Taking a sentence from this fearfully and wonderfully constructed
criticism, we defy any person, literary or otherwise, to
comprehend what is meant. Here it is:
But if we plead guilty to hypercriticism of error that may
be chargeable in justice to the proof-reader, the scapegoat of
many a literary sinner, it cannot be charged that it is captious to suggest, iu response to the editorial inquiry in the
next sentence, "What will we say?" that no one could have
answered the conundrum, except the literary Cheap-John
who propounded it, since he (possibly) knew. Had the question been "What shall we say," the world with propriety
might have replied that "silence is golden." It is not proposed to "cite attention" to all the china-smashing by our
contemporary's apprentice, but it is pardonable to call attention to the grammatical fact that "queries" do not, except
perhaps in the Themis office, "follows."
Our neighbors should look well to themselves ere
they find fault with others. "A man must serve a time
to every trade save censure; critics are ready made.''
The object of our review of the state series of school
books was not to find fault with their literary merit,
but to disclose the impractical and absurd questions
that are propounded to children of tender age. Thus
it will appear that our contemporary's criticism was
indeed hypercritical in the extreme. Certain it is that
our review was the truth, and written in such a manner as to reach the intelligence of our community.